Renaissance weapons pack

[The Pope]

I've started doing some models for a renaissance weapons pack. Here's whats done so far:

This is the WIP arquebus, doesn't have a texture yet.

 

[okiN]

Guns, obviously.

 

[The Pope]

I'll wait to see how much the mod tools can do before adding them - if I'm going to do guns, I don't want them to be funny looking crossbows that shoot round bolts.

 

[Matrix33]

Koncerz. Sorry, but english name is unknown to me. It's long, 120-150cm blade sutitable for thrusting only. Cross sectrion triangular or romboidal. Used to pierce enemy's plate armour or to find weakspots on the armour.
I have feeling anybody has posted already this weapon somewhere. The beginnings on koncerz are known in XVI century.

This particular koncerz was used by Teutonic Order Templars during Renaissance.

Also flambergs (Zwei handers with flame shaped blade very similar to your model) and two handed sabers with broad blade end.
Spade (was introduced exactly durung reneissance)
Also pickaxes were very popular during begining of the XVIth century.
And nice model btw
That's all for now
Regards

 

[Kestenvarn]

Rapier is probably next, any suggestions for what should come after that?

How about more than one kind of rapier? Just to mix it up a little.

 

[compfreak]

maybe some long daggers. i think those were sometimes used together with other swords, but here they can be a backup to archery. very fast, low damage, medium reach. btw, why is there a spike on the first sword? that looks painful.

 

[Kestenvarn]

maybe some long daggers. i think those were sometimes used together with other swords, but here they can be a backup to archery. very fast, low damage, medium reach.

Reading this makes me wish there was some way to lunge.

 

[okiN]

I'll wait to see how much the mod tools can do before adding them - if I'm going to do guns, I don't want them to be funny looking crossbows that shoot round bolts.

Well, they wouldn't need to be much more than that, would they? Just give them a new model and sounds, make them excruciatingly slow to reload, raise projectile speed and damage through the roof and hey, presto! Instant muskets!

 

[memnoch]

Not sure I like the idea of enemy troops armed with one shot one kill weaponry. I would imagine you would need to make them very innacurate even at middle ranges but devastating up close rather like a shotgun.

 

[okiN]

Yes, obviously accuracy should be poor. Proficiency would help, but only up to a certain point, since no amount of skill can alter the weapon's own deficiencies. Consistent accuracy should only be achieved somewhere between 100 and 200 feet. And they wouldn't always be one-hit-kill, their damage should be clearly better than the sniper crossbow's, but not a 100% guaranteed kill, not for high-hp, well-armored units, anyway.

 

[ShangTang]

Well of course they wouldn't be accurate. Renaissance-era countries didn't exactly have access to springfields and mausers.

But even if they hit they shouldn't be one shot kill, unless to the chest or head.

 

[compfreak]

But even if they hit they shouldn't be one shot kill, unless to the chest or head.

Why only those two areas? Think about it, there is a large artery in the leg. If you shoot someone's leg with a musket (or whatever they were called then), you'll probably hit that artery, because the old ammo was a large metal ball that tore flesh and splintered bone. A torn artery will bleed very quickly, so a leg shot has a higher chance of killing them than shooting the ribcage area. Guns should do fatal or near fatal damage no matter where they hit, since that is more like what the real weapons did.

 

[Turbografx16]

But even if they hit they shouldn't be one shot kill, unless to the chest or head.

Why only those two areas? Think about it, there is a large artery in the leg. If you shoot someone's leg with a musket (or whatever they were called then), you'll probably hit that artery, because the old ammo was a large metal ball that tore flesh and splintered bone. A torn artery will bleed very quickly, so a leg shot has a higher chance of killing them than shooting the ribcage area. Guns should do fatal or near fatal damage no matter where they hit, since that is more like what the real weapons did.

Avsoloutely correct..for my SAT Equivalent project I did field and practical research witha number of early firearms and in various calibers to discover the effect the would have had on the soldiery of the period (using ballistic jelly, pork and pork ribs as flesh controls and metal plate as armor.)
In fact a large percentage of casualties died from leg injuries (the amount and size of vains and arteries in the legs can cause one to bleed to death rather quickly) also with the calibers in common use back then, which varied from .50-.89, could be deadly regardless of which part of the body they hit.
A .80 caliber musket ball will make a hole in a person's ribs with a diameter of about the length between 2 knuckles, about 3cm.
Here are a few pics of the damage one of these will do:

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/9158/p8110003a9hm.jpg

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/1488/p8110004a5qj.jpg

 

[The Pope]

Well, they wouldn't need to be much more than that, would they? Just give them a new model and sounds, make them excruciatingly slow to reload, raise projectile speed and damage through the roof and hey, presto! Instant muskets!

It would be rather underwhelming without a big flash and lots of smoke - early firearms relied on shock as much as their firepower to drive off enemies.

Here's my current list:

Rapier
Dagger
Koncerz
Flamberge
Pickaxe
Flammarde (Single handed flamberge)
Arquebus
Pistol

By spade do you mean something like a shovel, or was there a military version?

 

[Crazed Rabbit]

I recall reading somewhere that firearms in the mid to late 1800s would often not be fatal if someone was struck in the chest, as the large caliber bulet would simply pass straight through w/o fragmenting. So a one hit kill might not be entirely desirable, though it would be better if injuries could be represented, like getting shot in the chest and going unconcious but not dying.

As for the weapons, I would reccomend a halberd. The game definately needs one. So far, your sword looks great.

Crazed Rabbit

 

[okiN]

It would be rather underwhelming without a big flash and lots of smoke - early firearms relied on shock as much as their firepower to drive off enemies.

You're right, it would be lame without some pyrotechnics, forgot all about those. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[The Pope]

I hadn't realised there wasn't already a halberd - putting one in seemed like a priority. Here's the untextured model:

 

[Matrix33]

I've found english name for koncerz - estock. I think it'll be more "user friendly" name
And nice halberd model.
Regards

 

[Turbografx16]

I recall reading somewhere that firearms in the mid to late 1800s would often not be fatal if someone was struck in the chest, as the large caliber bulet would simply pass straight through w/o fragmenting. So a one hit kill might not be entirely desirable, though it would be better if injuries could be represented, like getting shot in the chest and going unconcious but not dying.

As for the weapons, I would reccomend a halberd. The game definately needs one. So far, your sword looks great.

Crazed Rabbit

Unfortunately I think not...lead is soft and about half a centimeter into the chest it will start to expand and flatten out...musket wounds, except when ricocheted, are almost always fatal to the chest, stomach or head..and often to the leg as well.

 

[Matrix33]

Unfortunately I think not...lead is soft and about half a centimeter into the chest it will start to expand and flatten out...musket wounds, except when ricocheted, are almost always fatal to the chest, stomach or head..and often to the leg as well.

Yes, I've read about deaths caused by shock from being hit in the arm or leg. And wounds were caused by arquebuses. We must remember that guns from that period had caliber 18-20 milimeters, what gives you pretty big chunk of lead hiting you.
Regards